list_issue_notes_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it lists notes; it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, output shape (though an output schema exists), or any potential side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states the purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is adequate for a simple list operation. However, it lacks any mention of pagination defaults, sort behavior, or limitations, though these are covered by the schema. It does not add contextual completeness beyond the minimal definition, but it is not incomplete enough to impede usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 6 parameters are individually documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List notes (comments) on an issue' clearly states the action (list) and resource (issue notes/comments), and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mr_notes_tool (for merge requests) and create_issue_note_tool (for creation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or cases where another tool (e.g., list_mr_notes_tool) would be more appropriate. The description is purely a statement of function without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.